July 19, 2006
In First Veto, Bush Blocks Stem Cell Bill
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, July 19 — President Bush vetoed a bill for the first time today, using his constitutional power to reject legislation passed by Congress that would expand federal research on embryonic stem cells, a step he said would be “crossing a moral line.”

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life,” Mr. Bush said at the White House, surrounded by scores of children born as a result of an embryo-adoption program and their parents.

The president said his own position on stem cell research, articulated in 2001, already allowed research “without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life.”

Five years ago, Mr. Bush said he would allow federal research money to be used only on a limited number of stem-cell colonies, or lines — those that were already in existence before Aug. 9, 2001. The legislation that Mr. Bush vetoed today would have lifted that specific restriction, greatly increasing the number of lines that would be available to scientists.

The Senate approved the bill on Tuesday with 63 yes votes, 4 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Vote-counters in the House of Representatives say that the bill lacks the necessary two-thirds “yes” votes in that chamber too. So the legislation appears dead for the time being.

Because embryonic stem cells have the potential to turn into almost any type of cell in the body, scientists hope they can eventually be used to create tissue and repair the damage caused by various diseases. But the process of creating stem cells now involves destroying the embryos, a practice that Mr. Bush and many others have denounced as immoral.

Some Republicans who side with the president on the issue of abortion have broken with him on the stem-cell legislation, since the bill approved by the Senate on Tuesday, and earlier by the House, would apply to excess embryos harvested for in-vitro fertilization that would be destroyed in any case if not used in research.

Critics of the legislation have said it still involves “taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research,” as the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, put it on Tuesday.

Democratic lawmakers denounced the veto in advance at a Capitol news conference.

“Less than 24 hours after the Senate passed groundbreaking stem cell legislation, President Bush is set to defy the will of the American people and crush the hopes of millions who suffer from debilitating conditions and diseases like diabetes, spinal cord injury, Lou Gehrig’s, Parkinson’s and others,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader.

“We are not going to give up this fight for stem cell research,” Mr. Reid said. “We’re going to press Republicans to override a veto, just as we pressed Republicans to bring it to the Senate floor, and just as we pressed Republicans to get it passed. We didn’t give up then. We’re not going to give up now.”

Mr. Reid said that most of the 44 Democratic senators had sent a letter to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader and one of the 19 Republicans who voted for the stem cell bill on Tuesday. “We’re so hopeful that he’ll join us in this fight,” Mr. Reid said.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts also sounded a note of defiance. “We will not give in,” he said. “We are going to continue this battle, and we have every intention of success in winning this battle for families in our country and for people all over the world.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate minority whip, said the strategy of the Republicans who oppose the stem cell bill was clear: “It is their belief that if the president vetoes this bill quickly and does it early, that people across America will forget by November.”

That the president would use the first veto of his tenure on the stem-cell bill was “confounding,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Dempcrat of New York. Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said it was dismaying that Mr. Bush “heralds bipartisanship and then snuffs it out in his first opportunity.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said that the veto amounted to “saying ‘no’ to hope.” It is up to members of Congress, she said, to “represent their constituents” and vote to override the veto.

now, i get he has a moral objection to destroying embryos (leaving aside the fact that these would most likely eventually be destroyed anyway), and doesn't support using taxpayer dollars to do something morally objectionable.

but i have a moral objection to the iraq war, which also kills thousands of innocents, including small children. and yet he continues to support this, and to funnel ever-increasing amounts of my tax dollars into killing both americans and iraqis, as well as torturing and maiming others (all of which i find morally reprehensible). so i'm having a little trouble with his logic, here.

i guess the difference is that the people dying in iraq are real people, and the embryos are only potentially people. and somehow the fundamentalists value potential people more than real people._________________aka: neverscared!

I also have a problem of sticking those children out there as a political banner when they probably haven't had the real chance to think about the meaning behind it all. Not to mention that the way in which they were created has nothing to do with the embryos that are being used in stem-cell research. (So far as i can tell, correct me if I'm wrong.)

And what ever happened to the fact that stem-cell research has the potential of curing so many humans that are already alive and want to live life healthier.

I find war to be an inevitable situation with the state of humanity, and I personally think we are in one of the most if not THE MOST humane war in the history of the world (Iraq part deux). Does it mean I like war or condone it? Certainly not.

I find the value of life overall to be in hand, not necessarily the life of potential life vs. real life (IE already living human organisms).

I think getting rid of the people who take innocent life for no other reason then to spread fear in order to gain power. is just as important as saving the lives of potential embryos. It is all about potentially saving lives in the end.

Think of it this way, if you had the opportunity to go back in time and assassinate Adolf Hitler would you do it?

Or better yet, would you sacrifice yourself to save 100 people? 1000 people?

As for stimcell research, I think it would be beneficial to humanity, but at what cost? I'm not completely pro or completely con on it *yet*._________________Must... stop...procrastinating ARGH!! C'est la vie *sigh*

Founder of the 10 July 2006Elitist Member Club
Member jackets coming soon!!!

Last edited by DigitalVirtuoso on Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

I also have a problem of sticking those children out there as a political banner when they probably haven't had the real chance to think about the meaning behind it all. Not to mention that the way in which they were created has nothing to do with the embryos that are being used in stem-cell research. (So far as i can tell, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think you are wrong. The kids are adopted from left over in vitro fertilization procedures, when they existed at the same stage as the potential stem cell donor embryos. Bush was pointing out they could become children.

Lemontree wrote:

And what ever happened to the fact that stem-cell research has the potential of curing so many humans that are already alive and want to live life healthier.

Arrghhh.. his logic confounds and astounds.

Well, most people would not support killing a living person even to potentially save numerous others. So if your belief is that frozen blastocysts are human, it makes sense.

A better way to put that would have been to say that they aren't talking about just grabbing these embryos and having at it.

They're talking about giving people the opportunity to donate these fertilized eggs. Currently the options involve indefinite storage, later implantation, or destruction. No one is talking about making the destruction option illegal, but god forbid they forward an agenda many fundamentalist consider threatening (IE the pursuit of medical scientific knowledge).

I would have more respect (although I still wouldn't agree) with this administration if they were throwing a hissy fit over the fact that people are "ALLOWED" (GOD FORBID!) to destroy the fertilized eggs they don't use. They aren't doing that though. They're just blocking research and not "Saving" anyone. Morality has nothing to do with it. If it did the issue wouldn't be framed the way it is._________________"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

Dro that would be because they're arguably no more advanced than your average skin cell. No central nervous system, no feelings, no assurance they're even viable for that matter. The fact that they "CAN" develop further, if allowed to does not give them mystical status. Unless, of course, you're a mystical sort.

I have no heartburn with that. I just have heartburn with the fact that a goodly portion of humanity doesn't necessarily share that view of where the line should be drawn. Those who disagree needn't participate, but nor should they try to force everyone else to toe the line they draw.

There is no line at any point in human development when you can say a person becomes a person. It would have to be relatively arbitrary. The funny thing about arbitrary lines is that people disagree about where they go._________________"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

Would I do it? To save 100 people? Those 100 people are someone's children too.

Yet, I am cynical when it comes to those questions. If the 100 people in question were all junkies. I would never consider doing it one bit, most of them chose to be that way (My personal Opinion). If it were people born into a disease that could not be cured otherwise, or had uncontroled circumstances marr their lives: that sings a different story with me.

How would you feel about it? Would you give up an embryo if you could save 100 children?

Quote:

They're just blocking research and not "Saving" anyone.

It is still under a moral guise, intentional or not. =/_________________Must... stop...procrastinating ARGH!! C'est la vie *sigh*

Founder of the 10 July 2006Elitist Member Club
Member jackets coming soon!!!

Last edited by DigitalVirtuoso on Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:00 pm; edited 2 times in total

Better yet, would you sacrifice your child to save 100 people? The stem cell donor embryos aren't in a position to make a choice.

but (rightly or wrongly), their parents are. i believe they usually get to choose what happens to excess embryos - donated for research, donated to other parents, destroyed or stored indefinitely. a lot of people absolutely do not want to donate excess embryos to other parents - something along the lines of "no one else is going to raise my kid", or something like that.

i do see the moral dilemna here. what i don't see is why other things are not similar moral dilemnas. now, be honest - which child would be harder to sacrifice - one that existed only as a collection of cells, or one you spent 18+ years raising and knowing and loving? true, the older child can choose to sacrifice him or herself - does that really make it easier?

DigitalVirtuoso wrote:

I find war to be an inevitable situation with the state of humanity, and I personally think we are in one of the most if not THE MOST humane war in the history of the world (Iraq part deux).

i find it really hard to classify a war that includes allowing torture and trying to opt out of the geneva convention as "most humane". and if you are going to throw in that the terrorists do worse things - then how humane is the war?

and i don't consider war to be inevitable - certainly iraq was not. it was a choice; other choices were possible. (as they were with hitler - the rest of the world didn't have to sit still while he took over austria, etc., nor did it have to close its eyes to the holocaust. the fact that chamberlain was duped does not mean that hitler could have duped everyone who attempted to limit him.)_________________aka: neverscared!

How would you feel about it? Would you give up an embryo if you could save 100 children?

if i had more than i needed? absolutely.

but this is completely beside the point. my choosing to donate an embryo to research in no way compells you to donate an embryo to research. if you choose to donate your excess embryos to another couple, all well and good - but you should not be able to compell me to do that, if that's not what i want to do. and this law will limit my options, and may be on course to compell me to do something i don't want to do (if, for example, i feel really strongly about having children out there being raised by some unknown people, and if (as e-boy suggests) congress gets a consistent act together and bans destroying all embryos).

(edited to rave on a bit more)_________________aka: neverscared!

Last edited by mouse on Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total